GAO-12-709R Military Base Realignments and Closures
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 June 29, 2012 The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman The Honorable John McCain Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman The Honorable Thad Cochran Ranking Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Howard “Buck” McKeon Chairman The Honorable Adam Smith Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives The Honorable C. W. Bill Young Chairman The Honorable Norman D. Dicks Ranking Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Subject: Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings Estimates from BRAC 2005 The Department of Defense’s (DOD) cost estimates to implement recommendations from the most recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round have increased and estimated savings resulting from the round have decreased compared to the estimates from the 2005 BRAC Commission. BRAC 2005 was the fifth round of base closures and realignments undertaken by DOD since 1988, and it was the biggest, most complex BRAC round ever. GAO-12-709R Military Base Realignments and Closures To implement this round, DOD executed hundreds of BRAC actions involving over 800 defense locations and the planned relocation of over 125,000 personnel. By law, BRAC 2005 recommendations were to be implemented by September 15, 2011.1 At the outset of BRAC 2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) indicated that DOD viewed BRAC 2005 as a unique opportunity to reshape its installations and realign its forces to meet defense needs for the next 20 years. In accordance with the statute authorizing BRAC 2005,2 DOD proposed the selection criteria to be used to develop and evaluate the candidate recommendations, and Congress subsequently codified those criteria.3 As in prior BRAC rounds, criteria relating to the goal of enhancing “military value”4 were to be given priority consideration, with other criteria to be considered including the extent and timing of potential costs and savings, economic impact to local communities, and other considerations. When applied in the context of the transformational goals set by the Secretary of Defense for BRAC 2005, these criteria resulted in many of the BRAC 2005 recommendations involving complex realignments, such as designating where military forces returning to the United States from overseas bases would be located; establishing joint military medical centers; creating joint bases; and reconfiguring the defense supply, storage, and distribution network. Nevertheless, anticipated savings resulting from implementing the recommendations remained an important consideration in justifying the need for another BRAC round. In a 2001 testimony before Congress, the Secretary of Defense stated that another BRAC round would generate recurring savings the department could use for other defense programs. However, as we have previously reported, the 2005 round is unlike previous BRAC rounds because of OSD’s emphasis on transformation and jointness, rather than just reducing excess infrastructure. Before DOD could begin to realize savings from BRAC 2005, it needed to invest billions of dollars in facility construction, renovation, and other up-front expenses. The BRAC Commission estimated that these one-time implementation costs would total about $21 billion; in contrast, DOD spent about $25 billion5 to implement the four previous BRAC rounds combined. The 1 The BRAC process is governed by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, originally passed as Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Pub. L. No. 101-510 (1990). It has subsequently been amended many times, including in 2001, when Congress authorized BRAC 2005 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-107 (2001). 2 The statute authorizing BRAC 2005, Pub. L. No. 107-107, § 3002 (2001), amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 by inserting a new section, § 2913, which established “military value” as the primary consideration for BRAC recommendations and specified a number of considerations for determining military value, along with other selection criteria. 3 DOD spelled out its final criteria at 69 Fed. Reg. 6948 (2004). Congress codified the criteria as adopted by DOD, with only minor modifications. Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 2832 (2004). 4 Military value relate to such considerations as an installation’s current and future mission capabilities, condition, ability to accommodate future needs, and cost of operations. The criteria are spelled out at § 2913(b) of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (as amended). 5 This dollar amount is based on DOD’s fiscal year 2011 budget submission to Congress to pay for continuing implementation of recommendations from prior BRAC rounds (BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995). This amount does not include other costs associated with BRAC, such as costs to complete environmental cleanup at BRAC bases in future years and costs incurred by other DOD and federal Page 2 GAO-12-709R Military Base Realignments and Closures Commission also calculated that, taking into account the time value of money, over a 20-year period ending in 2025, DOD would achieve a positive net present value6 of about $36 billion, and it estimated that the net annual recurring savings7 that would accrue from implementing BRAC 2005 recommendations would be around $4.2 billion. In December 2007, we reported that DOD planned to spend more and save less than the BRAC Commission expected, and DOD’s 20-year net present value would be less than half of the Commission’s original estimate.8 That report also found that DOD’s BRAC cost and savings estimates were likely to continue to evolve due to uncertainties surrounding implementation details and potential increases in military construction. In each of two subsequent GAO reports and a recent testimony covering BRAC 2005 costs and savings, we found that DOD’s estimated one-time BRAC implementation costs had further increased, net annual recurring savings estimates had further decreased, and the 20-year net present value was diminishing.9 The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directs us to monitor the implementation of recommendations for the 2005 round of closures and realignments of military installations.10 This report updates the costs and savings associated with BRAC 2005 through the end of the implementation period. We will continue to analyze BRAC 2005 implementation and will issue a lessons learned report to conclude our reporting in response to this congressional directive later this year. A list of our prior work related to military base closures and realignments since the Secretary of Defense submitted his proposed BRAC actions to the BRAC Commission for review in May 2005 can be found at the end of this report. For this report, our objectives were to evaluate (1) how DOD’s costs to implement BRAC 2005 recommendations compared to the BRAC Commission’s estimates and the factors that contributed to cost increases, and (2) what 20-year net present value and net annual recurring savings DOD can expect by implementing agencies to provide assistance to communities and individuals impacted by BRAC. DOD’s budget submission is reported in current dollars (i.e., it includes projected inflation). 6 Net present value is a financial calculation that accounts for the time value of money by determining the present value of future savings minus up-front investment costs over a specific period of time. Determining net present value is important because it illustrates both the up-front investment costs and long-term savings in a single amount. In the context of BRAC implementation, net present value is calculated for a 20-year period from 2006 through 2025. 7 The net annual recurring savings is calculated by deducting DOD estimates of the annual recurring costs from the annual recurring savings that are expected to accrue in 2012, the year after the BRAC 2005 recommendations have been completed and are expected to be in a steady state. 8 GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve, GAO-08-159 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2007). 9 GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently Updating Savings Estimates, GAO-09-217 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2009); Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 2009, GAO-10-98R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 13, 2009); and Military Base Realignments and Closures. Key Factors Contributing to BRAC 2005 Results, GAO-12-513T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2012). 10 H.R. Rep. No. 110-146, at 514 (2007). Page 3 GAO-12-709R Military Base Realignments and Closures the 2005 BRAC recommendations and what factors have contributed to the overall decrease in savings from this round. Scope and Methodology To assess DOD’s cost estimates of implementing BRAC 2005, we examined the initial cost estimates in the BRAC Commission’s Report to the President and compared them to our analyses of data in DOD’s fiscal year 2011 BRAC 2005 budget submission to Congress.11 In addition, we discussed with the military departments’ BRAC offices the reasons for cost increases and reviewed OSD’s business plans for recommendations that had the largest increases in costs to determine the reasons for the changes, and discussed them with OSD officials, and officials in the military departments and defense agencies as appropriate. To evaluate changes in DOD’s projected 20-year net present value estimates from the BRAC Commission’s 2005 estimates, we examined the data in DOD’s fiscal year 2011 BRAC 2005 budget submission to Congress.